Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 4

Step four: RfC implementation details
So, here it is, at last. We have now got through step three, and decided all the main points of what will appear in the RfC. It has taken a little longer and been a bit more contentious than I think all of us would have liked, but we have done it and we are now on the home stretch. Step four should be the simplest of the steps so far, because what we will be deciding are mostly procedural issues that won't directly affect the content. My theory is that even if we disagree on some aspects of step four, it should be an amicable disagreement and shouldn't lead to any protracted arguments.

However, If you are concerned about any user conduct issues, I recommend you send me an email about them, even if they are only trifling little things. I think it will be better for all concerned if I deal with issues like this, as otherwise they might lead to a huge argument on the discussion page, and that makes things unpleasant for all involved. And remember that I will close discussions considering all the opinions that have been expressed. There's no need to keep replying if you have already made your point, or to try and "win" an argument – Wikipedia is not about winning. So, with that said, let's do our best to avoid personal remarks, and keep things focused on the structure of the RfC.

I am setting a provisional deadline for step four of one week – so unless any changes in schedule are necessitated by the discussion, step four will be open until the end of Monday, 20th May. I look forward to hearing all of your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Question one: RfC location
This is quite a basic matter, but I thought it would be a good idea to discuss it. I have thought of a few names, including: I would of course be open to hearing others' suggestions as well. Also, on a related note, do you think that we need to have the general discussion on a separate talk page, or is it sufficient to put it at the bottom of the RfC page? I ask this as it obviously isn't possible to have a separate talk page if the RfC page is already in the talk namespace. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC
 * Talk:Jerusalem/Lead RfC
 * Requests for comment/Jerusalem
 * Requests for comment/Jerusalem lead
 * I'd prefer something in the Wikipedia namespace, but I cant think of a reason why.  nableezy  - 14:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer the third option: putting it in the Wikipedia namespace makes it look more official, rather than just one of the several RfCs we've had. --  tariq abjotu  01:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the WP namespace as well, and specifically the third option. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I favor all four, using redirects. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could use redirects, but we do actually have to choose one place to put it. Redirects probably won't be that useful, though - as long as the links are correct in all the notifications that we post people should find their way to the discussion just fine. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I never really understood this concern over the "actual" name of an article. String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert) has swapped places with Death and the Maiden Quartet at least three times. But the first name is just as virtual as the second - the article's physical name is probably a six digit hexadecimal number. In this digital age, the redirect name is just as real as the "real" name. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh! what relief. After 7 years with this handle, someone finally came up with a formulation which implies I too, NIshidani, am real, though I have difficulty recognizing the old bastard, my altered ego.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Question two: Advertisement locations
The places I have thought of so far are: I think that a watchlist notice probably won't be granted, as they rarely if ever put up for content RfCs. The only case that I can think of is the Muhammad images RfC, and that one also had implications for the general Wikipedia policy on images. I also considered leaving a message at one of the village pump noticeboards, but I can't think of one where it would really fit. I'd be delighted to hear of any other suggestions you might have, though. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CENT. Normally content discussions aren't allowed at CENT, but I think an exception may be granted for this case due to its binding nature and that it is mandated by Arbcom.
 * Ask for it to be put on the discussion list at the Signpost.
 * All related WikiProject talk pages:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration (probably symbolic, but importantly so). &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject of this RFC is described in sources as a core issue in the mid-east conflict, so it may be seen as weightier than the Muhammad images case. --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't care. --  tariq abjotu  16:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Question three: Sockpuppetry/canvassing
The ideas I have had so far are: Let me know what you think of these ideas, and if you have any others as well. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Judicious use of spa templates for users who only seem to edit with an interest in this discussion. We should be careful not to apply it to good-faith editors, however. (Though I can see the line may be hard to draw in some cases.) Doing this diligently is probably the best way to discourage sockpuppets.
 * Using the notavote template or similar to educate users with our policies regarding discussions and voting.
 * Advertising the RfC as widely as possible, within the limits set by WP:CANVASS. The more visible the RfC is, the less effective canvassing becomes, as the canvassed editors become more likely to have become aware of the discussion through other means.
 * Leaving a note on Administrators' noticeboard. Getting more admin eyes on the discussion should make spotting and dealing with sockpuppets easier, and should make it easier to deal with user conduct issues should they come up.
 * Finally, I think we should prohibit editors from this discussion sending invitations to individual editors. It is all too easy to be accused of canvassing by doing this. Instead, if you would like to notify individual editors, I suggest you think of the criteria by which you would notify them, and make a note of those criteria here. I can then notify the editors myself when the RfC starts.

There is a quite a lot of talk about sockpuppetry and assuming good faith in ARBPIA, but little data. For interest, a few months ago I did an analysis of about ~870 edits in 4 articles in ARBPIA, 2 high profile articles that have existed for many years, and 2 smaller newer articles. I was trying to see whether assuming good faith is a rational strategy in ARBPIA. I found that for edits made by registered users or IPs with less than 500 edits, the probability of an edit being made by a confirmed sock rather than an apparently new legitimate non-sock for each article was 68.9%, 62.5%, 83.9% and 50.8%. So, sockpuppetry is definitely something that can have a very significant impact in ARBPIA and it needs to be taken into account...somehow.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This should be a discussion between people well-versed in Wikipedia policy, and I personally find it hard to believe that somebody can both be very new and be well versed in policy if they are not a sockpuppet. So if it were up to me, I'd say a minimum of 1000 edits is required to participate in the RFC.  nableezy  - 14:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest the RfC page be semi-protected to automatically eliminate editors who haven't passed that threshold. An even more stringent mininum number of edits wouldn't hurt either. Zerotalk 14:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. We need, certainly, fresh eyes, but from experienced and esp. productive wikipedians with no horse in the race. Alon Shvut was the most recent case bearing some comparison with this, and the result led to this.  SubsequentlyOne preliminary vote showed rough parity (10/12 (actually, overcounting occurred, and that turned out to be 11). Voting eventually doubled but looked distinctly odd, as I pointed out,  also here. The pattern was one side (wishing to revert the Arbcom ruling) had many votes by boilerplate, the other had a high proportion of votes by people whose participation throughout was articulate, and showed an understanding of the problems and process. Garnering honest numbers difficult. I think the main point made, often by supervising admins, was that numbers are less important than the strength of arguments, which is, I believe, policy. A 1,000 edits limit would be fair, though I wouldn't oppose more stringent limits. You will not be blamed for refusing however to wade through that particular slough of despond.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any precedent for limiting discussions like this? It might be considered a violation of policy. (I don't know; I'm just wondering.) -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. If it is just a matter of semi-protecting the RfC page, extending to it a limit designed to avoid patent abuse, doesn't seem to violate policy, does it? RfC means comments, not votes, a request for wider input that would be, optimally, cogent, on-topic and informed. The rampant use of sockpuppetry in this area is well-known, has indeed been analysed by Sean.hoyland, and some measure on such a sensitive, politically toxic issue where geopolitical obsessions blur intelligent comments, would seem advisable. But your point does require clarification.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any precedent for semi-protecting an RfC like this from the get-go. I can think of a few RfA discussions that were protected after IP disruption, but nothing right from the start. This fits in with the protection policy's instruction that page protection should not be pre-emptive. If there is significant disruption from IPs after the discussion starts, though, there shouldn't be a problem with protecting the page. If we want to semi-protect from the start, then we should probably start a thread on a community noticeboard or ask Arbcom about it - it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing we can decide by ourselves. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 02:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick comment on semi-protection. It may not produce the desired effect. For one of the ARBPIA articles I looked at all edits from 2012-04-08 to 2013-01-10, about 9 months, during which the article was semi-protected 4 times, amounting to over 4 months of semi-protection i.e. the article was semi-protected about half of the time, making it a good candidate to test the effects of semi-protection, at least for one article. Although there were less sock edits while the article was semi-protected, edits by legitimate new accounts/IPs (with less than < 500 edits) were reduced even more. The probability of an edit being made by a sock rather than an apparently new non-sock was 63.0% when the article was unprotected and 80.2% when it was semi-protected (results PDF). In practice, in relative terms, the semi-protection reduced the signal from legitimate new editors and amplified the noise from socks. I guess dishonest nationalists are more determined than the general population or at least the sample of the general population that tried to edit that article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be very uneasy about restricting input to the RfC, particularly anything that goes further than semi-protection (which I also wouldn't favour). It's just not in the spirit of the project. If there are serious concerns in this area as the RfC progresses, perhaps they could be dealt with at the other end, by checking with the closers that they are aware of the general issue and by any user that cares to making an analysis of posts for their use. Formerip (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem of sock puppetry and canvassing is severe enough in this topic area to warrant some preemptive steps to protect ourselves. On the other hand, I share Formerip's concern about restricting input - a lot of times (and especially in this case) newcomers have interesting and valuable things to say. What about some kind of original solution - like restricting the main discussion area to editors with 500 edits (1000 seems a bit extreme to me), while having an unrestricted area where everyone could participate? And when a moderator sees comments in the public area that are original and constructive, the moderator can move them to main discussion space.

Perhaps this is not the best solution, but we should think out of the box to deal with this issue. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory statement
At Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/RfC draft I have written a short introduction, and I have left a space for an outline of the dispute. Would anyone be kind enough to expand this into a form that we can use in the RfC? I give you all permission to edit the introduction and the dispute outline wiki-style, and I'm looking forward to see what you come up with. If there is any disagreement between participants, please discuss it here so that we can come to a consensus on what to do. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Question four: Discussion structure of general questions

 * I think we can let members of the community weigh in in any way they choose to. However, just saying yes/no probably has no effect on the end result, and to keep things simpler, why not have just a "responses" space after each question? --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Encouraging people to say "yes", "no", or "other" ensures potentially verbose, open-ended remarks aren't misinterpreted. --  tariq abjotu  16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Question five: Mechanism for proposing drafts
Some ways of doing this that I have thought of are: Again, let me know what you think of these ideas, and if you have any good ideas of your own for how to structure the submission of new drafts. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow uninvolved editors to freely submit their own drafts.
 * Give a grace period of, say, a week, for uninvolved editors to create their own drafts before we allow any comments about individual drafts. This would help drafts submitted by outside editors to be discussed on an equal footing with the drafts that we have already made.
 * If we had such a grace period, we could use full protection to prevent editors from editing the drafts comment section before the grace period was over, and we could also use it to prevent editors from editing the drafts after the grace period finished. This would require doing some funky things with transclusion, but it would ensure that drafts were compared on an equal footing without having to delete comments made by good-faith editors.
 * We could have a separate section for drafts submitted by RfC commenters, to make it clear that extra drafts are welcomed. This would mean that we would have to use something other than the usual numbered list when making the drafts, though.
 * To avoid the discussion being overwhelmed by a large number of drafts, we could place a limit on creation of drafts, e.g. one per editor. We could also use a "support with revisions" section for respondents, also discussed below.


 * Here too I'd support simply allowing editors to weigh in in any form they choose. --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we did it this way, we would have to be prepared for some of the drafts to be less prominent than others. For example, a draft added halfway through the discussion would be seen by significantly less people than a draft present from the start. I am concerned that this would make our closers' jobs a lot harder than it would be otherwise. Do you think this would be a problem? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a risk this might happen, but if the discussion is more or less trending in a certain direction (or directions), this may not in fact be much of a problem if a suggestion is a clear improvement and clearly in-line with previous comments. --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Question six: Discussion structure for drafts
Having a "support with revisions" option is useful because sometimes editors will oppose a draft because of minor flaws that could be easily fixed. Having the option there for them to support and specify what they would like to see revised will make it clearer who is fundamentally opposed to that particular draft, and who is opposed for reasons that are more easily dealt with.

Also, I think we should allow commenters to support or oppose as many drafts as they like. I think this would encourage editors to give reasoned arguments for their choices, and it would help to limit the effect of any perceived inequalities between drafts that are intended as the first sentence of the lead, and drafts that are intended to go later on in the lead. However, I am of course open to other suggestions that people have on this issue. Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think having those alternatives sounds like a good idea. --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Question seven: Other issues
I have never participated in a grand-slam RFC like the one we are designing here, but I have been involved in a lot of similar discussions elsewhere. All this advance planning is great, and prepares us for the impending chaos. But we should be aware - and especially you, Antonio - that once the RFC takes off, there is no way of knowing which way it will go. We should be ready for that - for example, ready to restructure the discussion when it wants to fly in another direction altogether. As a simple example, suppose a consensus is evolving to merge two different drafts - you would have to restructure the separate draft discussions into one.

Antonio, it seems to me that a huge responsibility for the success of the RFC depends on you. You are the one who must shepherd the discussion towards consensus, encourage threads that converge, discourage the cantankerous, and organize and reorganize the discussion toward agreement. Your careful and thorough approach suggests to me that you are up for the job, and I am looking forward to a lively, interesting, and constructive RFC. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment, and I shall do my best to make this RfC work. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The final countdown
Thank you for those of you who provided input to step four. It is now very nearly time for the RfC. I have applied the results of the step four discussion to the RfC draft, and it is now basically ready for user comments. There are a few aspects of the RfC that haven't been discussed, such as my choice of wording in the intro, and the exact numbering of the drafts (I randomised them using random.org). I am going to leave a couple of days for everyone to review the draft and provide feedback, and I'll put it up live at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). If it's just a small matter of copyediting, you can go ahead and edit the draft page yourself. If it might be more contentious, it is probably better to discuss it here. So here is my very last question:

Points summarised from the RfC talk page

 * I didn't initially realize you wanted this to be discussed here, rather than there (that makes sense; you may want to archive those remarks before you launch the RfC). However, let me summarize the points that I made on the talk page there:


 * A link to Positions on Jerusalem should be added in the intro.
 * The current version (numbered Draft 3 at present) should be the first draft.
 * You should give an estimate of how long you believe the RfC will be open. Thirty days? Until July 1?


 * I know I didn't propose a blurb for introducing the topic (like everyone else), and you seemed unhappy about that. But I think it's for the best; you're probably in the best position to write a matter-of-fact introduction to this issue, and I believe your stab at it was just fine. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing: I'd like to suggest that it be made clearer that there are two distinct sections -- questions and drafts -- in the TOC. Perhaps this could be done by using Level-1 headers entitled Questions and Drafts. Unfortunately, those headers are massive. So, maybe that's not a good idea. It's not very important though, so if it looks aesthetically unpleasing, don't do it. --  tariq abjotu  15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all good suggestions, and I have implemented them. In the case of the headings, I simply bumped up the subheading level by one rather than use level one headings. As you anticipated, the level one headings looked pretty garish, but level four headings for the discussion subsections actually looked rather nice once I tried them. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Source summary
"East Jerusalem... is in the Palestinian territories and is occupied by Israel." "Palestinian territories" is a grossly controversial term that implies and presumes ownership or entitlement. Whether it should presented here as a statement of fact might need an RfC of its own. "[O]ccupied by Israel" is similarly POV and misleading. Recommended wording: "East Jerusalem... is in the so-called "Palestianian territories" and is regarded by many sources as occupied by Israel". Failure to change this statement would leave in place an element of inherent bias unworthy of this project. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? [A] grossly controversial term? How about so called "Israel"? An insanely high proportion of reliable sources are crystal clear on these facts, editors, aka random people on the internet, not liking those cold hard facts dont factor into it. To call it a misleading source summary when the cited sources say exactly what the summary does makes about as much sense as "Palestinian territories" is a grossly controversial term. That is, it makes no sense at all. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * nableezy - pretty sure he was serious. you know very well that there are plenty of RS to support lots of way to word something. i think it has to be very carefully done, and as NPOV as possible, even if it means it might be awkward - for example: East Jerusalem is under Israeli rule since 19xx and according to the PA, is "occupied" and part of the palestinian territories. Soosim (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is blatantly untrue. It is not according to the PA, it is according to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. You know, that thing we base our articles on. The sources are clear on this point, and no amount of completely bogus hand waving changes that. Sources were brought, and those sources are among the best you will find in any Wikipedia article. Ill take Adam Roberts (scholar) over "Soosim" and "Hertz1888", sorry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That the West Bank and East Jerusalem are in the Palestinian territories and occupied by Israel is largely agreed-upon. In my opinion, the wording is controversial only in the sense that some people and organizations don't like using a phrase that paints a particular side in a bad light. I haven't been following every thread on Jerusalem (and neither have you, apparently), but I never got the impression there was any debate [at least among editors involved in this article] regarding the concept of East Jerusalem being occupied and in Palestinian territories; rather, there is just debate (and not even much) about a conceivably negative wording that states that concept. However, the use of "occupied" and "Palestinian territories" is so common in sources around the world that that controversy is hardly worth consideration. Therefore, your suggested modifications, particularly the so-called "Palestinian territories" suggestion, constitute unnecessary circumvention. --  tariq abjotu  18:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@S and H: where exactly where the two of you when we were putting together sources? You want to object now? And without any source of comparable quality to the ones brought earlier? Please, come off it. Both of these proposed wordings are so far away from what the sources say, and so obviously slanted to an expansionist Israeli POV, that they merit no thought. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * i am not surprised by your POV nableezy, and nor should you be by mine. what is surprising is your unwillingness to even see that there is more than one side to how to word it. we can propose wording that is within 500 quality RS and still be acceptable to both POVs. and again, i am not sure why you need to be so attackful/aggressive with your comments like slanted to an expansionist israeli pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soosim (talk • contribs)
 * (ec)Hertz is incorrect to say this is 'controversial' unless by 'controversial' is to be understood, 'contested by Israel's government'. Soosim is wrong to classify the viewpoint espoused as the 'Palestinian'(PA) POV. That East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories is the judgement of the International Court of Justice ruling in 2004 'The Court concludes that all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.' I.e. in international law, East Jerusalem is designated as in an occupied territory. The position in the draft is that of international law, and Israel's position of dissent is unique among the community of nations. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One can acknowledge that there is more than one side to something and not agree to giving both sides equal consideration. This is the issue here. Yes, in some circles, the use of the aforementioned terms are unacceptable. However, the size of those circles is miniscule compared to those where they are accepted fact. In light of that, a reasonable observer would see that those small circles are simply threatened by the supposedly controversial terms. Even without making that observation, WP:UNDUE enjoins us to consider the two sides' arguments relative to their prevalence -- and that means, in the context of making a one-sentence summary of a concept, adhering to the wording that was originally presented. --  tariq abjotu  18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge there are several sides. There is an Israeli government side (EJ is part of Jerusalem, an integral part of Israel), an expansionist Israeli side (there is no such thing as "East Jerusalem", there is only Jerusalem. And what "West Bank", that's eastern Israel), a PLO side (EJ is part of Palestine), a, I dont know how to say this, but extremist Palestinian side (what's Israel, this is all occupied Palestine), and a side that nearly the entire world is on (EJ is part of the Palestinian territories and is held under Israeli occupation). I acknowledge that those views exist. But, as you say, WP:UNDUE and Id add WP:RS make clear which statement we should be making. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The source summaries were agreed in a moderated discussion, this isn't the place to re-litigate those discussions. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Article content

 * It's dead wrong to begin the article with "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel....", when this is disputed (not by some, but by the whole world). I suggested earlier that the article should begin something like this: "Jerusalem is an old city in the geographic region Palestine and the self-proclaimed capital of Israel".--Ezzex (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * hmmm. why not simply say, "Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital city"? --Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To come over this old problem, I would support a solution similar to this moving the political issues away from the first sentence, then talking about how each side consider it without making a "fact-like" statement such as the capital of whom --aad_Dira (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Uh... you three do realize there's going to be an RfC about this, possibly in as soon as eight hours, right? Why are you all putting forth suggestions like this debate started yesterday? It's not going to be solved in the next couple hours. If you have more drafts that are substantially different from the seven here already, there's -- lucky for you -- space to add that in the RfC itself... once it, again, begins in a matter of hours. --  tariq abjotu  01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Two questions
Two questions: Ypnypn (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Will this be announced at Talk:Jerusalem?
 * 2) There is no section titled "General discussion". Is this intentional?
 * Good point about Talk:Jerusalem - yes, I will announce it there, and I will also announce it at some of the other directly affected articles, e.g. Talk:Positions on Jerusalem. Yes, there is no general discussion section on purpose, because we have a separate talk page for that, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I plan on archiving the existing talk on that page before I start the RfC, so that the talk there is about the actual content rather than the construction of the source summary, etc. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to a different type of general discussion. If I understand correctly, the talk page is for discussions about the RfC itself (such as concerns about sockpuppetry, length of the RfC, etc). Will there be a section within the RfC to discuss general related matters (such as the reliability of the sources, whether the lead must start with the word 'Jerusalem', etc)? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was expecting to see the talk page used for the second type of general discussion you list there, but on further reflection, if this was not obvious to you then it is likely to not be obvious to other commenters on the RfC as well. I'll add a general section discussion to the RfC page and re-think how to archive the talk page. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

General discussion
If you have any questions or comments, you can ask them here. Alternatively, you are welcome to post at my talk page, or to send me an email. Don't hesitate to get in touch if there's anything you're unsure about. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

notes re links, formats, rfc structure

 * well, one note. I suggest we remember to refer to this article, Positions on Jerusalem, in providing materials for this topical area, for this RFC, and for related items. just mentioning that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea - go ahead and edit the intro and include it where you think it best fits. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Will your signature remain on the RfC page? (By the way, I added links from each draft to the sections wherein they are discussed.) -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There has to be someone's signature on the RfC description right at the top, otherwise User:RFC bot won't work correctly. I'm happy with just including the one signature if people would like me to remove the others. Thoughts? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are closers going to be appointed prior to the start of the RfC? Formerip (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They've already been appointed by Arbcom, although that was a long time ago so we might need to give them a poke to see if they all remember. :) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

notes re rfc content, concepts, ideas
"There is very little support for the Israeli view..." form the source summaries is unclear. Are we referring to support from governments, academia, international organizations, the Israeli population, the international population, Wikipedians, or what? (The last part is not a joke: the statement might seem to be referring to previous concensus.) -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, but it's something I have already raised and there wasn't strong enough support for changing the statement. Formerip (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay; I had guessed it might have been already discussed. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the body
The subject is controversial, by definition. So it will not suffice to discuss the lead only. I suggest to discuss the section in the body too, to avoid a too long lead. A lead is not suitable for discussing the subject. There are at least an Israeli and a Palestinian view. The lead can only refer to that discussion, if it should be short. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we have already determined that the RfC should only concern the lead as per my closure of step one of this discussion. That's not to say that the article body is not up for discussion - quite the opposite - it is just that you need to discuss it at Talk:Jerusalem rather than at Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Step five: RfC discussion

 * Requests for comment/Jerusalem

And we're off! It's been a long, long time in coming, but the RfC has finally started. Thank you all for your hard work and your patience - I know that this discussion has tested everyone's patience at some points, but I'm glad that we have made it through. Let's hope that we have a good, productive discussion that can finally find a consensus on how to treat the lead. And by the way, if you haven't done so already, please go over to the RfC and leave your comments now! You, the participants in this discussion, are the editors who know the most about this dispute and all the various arguments that have been presented. It will be very useful for editors who are new to the dispute if you leave your opinions for them to see.

While the RfC is under way, all further talk should take place at Requests for comment/Jerusalem or its talk page. We want to keep all the discussion together, and we don't want to be accused of hiding anything by talking on a different page, so I'm shutting the discussion down on this page for now. We will reconvene when the RfC results are posted, for discussion about possible further steps to take, if that proves necessary. Again, thank you, and I'll see you over at the RfC! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)